{"id":163840,"date":"2010-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010"},"modified":"2014-11-21T13:25:35","modified_gmt":"2014-11-21T07:55:35","slug":"maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P … on 27 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P … on 27 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Ananda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 27'?\" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\n1.<\/pre>\n
THE) HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.ANA1$:II)A.\u00a2’  ”
\nCRIMINAL APPEAL No.1369\/20’e{;  A<\/p>\n
_E_3__E_’\u00a7__W_E_E_1\\\u00a3<\/p>\n
Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi A<\/p>\n
8\/0 Hosurappa
\nAged 33 Years
\nAgriculturist<\/p>\n
R\/at Bulasagara v’i2’iiw1’age’;AA'””V_  ‘IO; <\/p>\n
Channagiri Taiuk.  ‘  —\n<\/p>\n
H.Lakshmgf1a,_ @ 1:;gi1\u00a7sh:;;a\u00a7p\u00ab;\u00a7a.%_   O’<\/p>\n
3\/0   .\n<\/p>\n
Aged 37 =Y’evars”;._Agr11..A ‘<\/p>\n
R\/at Bu1.aSag’a_ra.OV’iEi\u00e9ige’, ‘<\/p>\n
Channagiri  ‘ –~ ., O” ” 2 <\/p>\n
}3..H.Rarnappa7’@ RafneSh
\n.~\u00a73~\/0OAH0sura’ppVa _<\/p>\n
V” “Ag\u00e9d 239. ‘Years ,mAgri.\n<\/p>\n
* OR\/vat’~Bu1tasagara Village,<\/p>\n
 C’i1?Hm’agiri~~~Ta1uk.\n<\/p>\n
.”~\u00ab._H0sL1rai;)pa<\/p>\n
8\/ 0 Thimmappa<\/p>\n
L Aged’ 68 Years
\n‘Agricuiturist\n<\/p>\n
 -R\/at Bulasagara Vii.,<\/p>\n
Channagiri Taiuk.\n<\/p>\n
Smt.Lakkamma<\/p>\n
W\/0 Hosurappa<\/p>\n
Aged 63 Years<\/p>\n
R\/at Buiasagara Viilage,
\nCharmagiri Tluk<\/p>\n
6. Kum.B.H.Shaila
\nS\/o Hosurappa
\nAged 23 Years
\nR\/at Balasagara Village,<\/p>\n
Channagiri Taluk.   p<\/p>\n
{By Sri.Y.S.Shivaprasad, Adv.)<\/p>\n
AND:<\/p>\n
\n\nState of Karnataka\n\nBy Channagiri RS. *    g \n\n<\/pre>\n
[By Sri Vij ayakumar Maj age,”  — . _<\/p>\n
This Crl..A is fil-cc\u00a3.j’11nde~r ‘Se-_cti’e;ri 374(2) Cr.P.C
\nagainst the Jiu’-dgment dated *06.lQ9,,2Q0A4i passed by The
\nDistrict andl’..,Se{ssio11s\u00abJudge, Eavanagere in Spl.SC\/ST
\nCase No.46\/{.02}, “‘c’o.nvic’ti.ngV..appelIar1ts–accused for
\nthe offences “pu:n_isliabl.Ve”undvervsections 147, 323, 324
\nand 5fO6llr’\/W5. section  lPC”and under section 3[l][x]
\nand 3v(1)(_x’i} Vof\/S’i”={_P;A]’ Act and sentencing them to
\nundergo 53.1. and to pay fine of Rs.250\/\u00bb*,
\nin default to undergo for 10 days for an offence
\npunishable” under section 147 IPC sentencing them to
\nundergo S.I. fo-r6 months and to pay fine of Rs.200\/–,<\/p>\n
 in”‘e–defaultyto undergo SI. for 10 days for an offence
\n \u00bb punishablepgunder section 323 IPC, sentencing them to
\n u.r_1dergo.._yS.I;e-.fo~r 1 year and to pay fine of RS.3O0\/W, in<\/p>\n
‘default ‘ to. undergo SI. for 1 month for an offence
\npu.nish..ab_le\u00bb’ under section 324 IPC sentencing them to
\nundergo RI. for 1 year and to pay fine of RS600\/~, in<\/p>\n
 default…”to undergo SI. for 2 months for an offence
\nff punishable under section 506 part–II r\/w section 149
\nlP\u00bbC..*and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for 6 months<\/p>\n
and to pay fine of Rs.5O0\/W, in default to undergo S.I.<\/p>\n
 ….-for 1 month for an offence punishable under section<\/p>\n
3[1}[X) of SC\/ST[PA) Act and further sentencing them to
\nundergo RI. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000\/–, in
\ndefault to undergo S.I. for 2 months for an offence
\npunishable under section 3[l](xi) of SC \/ ST (PA) Act. All
\nthe sentences shall run concurrently with one another,<\/p>\n
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the<\/p>\n
Court delivered the following:\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT’<\/p>\n
The appellants No.1 to 6 were arrayed;”aS” _<\/p>\n
No.1 to 6 in Sp1.C.C.No.46\/2001 on <\/p>\n
Judge, Davangere. They “7\u20aclT\u00a7 tried, and<\/p>\n
sentenced for offences pur1Vis\u00abhable*-under=Set\u00a7tions_}14’f,,:*<\/p>\n
323, 324, 506 1.p.c., and atg’ol i1c:porf\u00e9:l\u00ab\u00a2\u00a2s ptinishable<\/p>\n
under Sections 3   of the SC\/ST<\/p>\n
(Prevention of Atrocities} Plot;   short ‘the Act’)<\/p>\n
There:tore.’_’thley  this appeal.
\n2;’  have\u00abVheafti\u00ab..:’:pv”Sfi.Y.S.Shivaprasad \u00ab~\u00bb~ learned<\/p>\n
counsel. appellants\u00abaccL1sed and Sri.Vijaykurnar<\/p>\n
   leatjned Clovernment Pleader for the State.<\/p>\n
   :I”_nv_ the case of prosecution is as fo11oWs:–<\/p>\n
 Tfieleaecused No.1 to 3 and 6 are the Children of<\/p>\n
3   aCC.nsed.No.4 and 5. They are residents of Bhulasagara<\/p>\n
lkfilllage, Channagiri Taluk. They belong to Uppara caste.<\/p>\n
 –~ A.K.Rangappa is the husband of PW.2 w~<\/p>\n
Shanthamma. PW.4~\u00ab Neelappa is the br0ther__,:of PW.l.<\/p>\n
4 \\ “K :3”.\n<\/p>\n
,5–\\; CL\u00bb<\/p>\n
iPW.6 M Ningappa is also the brother of PW.l. PW.7 W<\/p>\n
Nagendrappa is related to PW. 1. The father of PW:-1 had<\/p>\n
two wives. Through his first wife. he had a <\/p>\n
name Lakkavva. He had purchased the land   <\/p>\n
4 acre 30 guntas in the name <\/p>\n
she was not married. _She l’was_.gettj1;g”~vtl1e<\/p>\n
cultivated through accusedll’-anzd. she W.as’-alsol”‘staying in’
\nthe house of    this family
\nmembers had taken.  there were<\/p>\n
quarrels betwieeii parties ‘regarding possession and<\/p>\n
cultixjfation’ 0<\/p>\n
th aidland.\n<\/p>\n
4.  <\/p>\n
4:\n<\/p>\n
7-.” \u00bbl9’9_’7\u00abat—abo.ut 8.80 a.m., accused No.1<\/p>\n
to 6 formed unlayVfull:aslsembl.y in front of the house of<\/p>\n
 -2 A.K.lRa._ngapf)a and in furtherance of common<\/p>\n
.A objjectj unlawful assembly. they used criminal<\/p>\n
 ~fo’rce  an offence of rioting. Accused No.1.<\/p>\n
toll.””8. ‘ltno\\kl1ng fully well that PWs.I & 2 belong to<\/p>\n
 “schedule caste, abused them by taking the name of
\n caste in public with a View to insult them. In<\/p>\n
V lvlllfurtherancre of the common object of unlawful assembly,<\/p>\n
accused No.4 to 6 pulled the saree of PVVI2 \u00bb:<\/p>\n
\u00a7’\\’;  \\$n.\n<\/p>\n
Shantharnma with an intention to dishonour or outrage
\nher madesty and also bet. and kicked her. Thegfefore,<\/p>\n
the accused committed an offence punishable<\/p>\n
Section 3 (1) [X] [xi] SC\/ST (Prevention offktjlriocvitiesl <\/p>\n
In the course of same transaction”and  t’uftheranC,e bf ‘<\/p>\n
commission of object of unla\\2{iful–.’aSsernh.ly=c ac:;us’ect_<\/p>\n
No.1 to 3 assaulted and   <\/p>\n
and Voluntarily caused h.u”1″t=. and they also
\nassaulted PW.l with cart  committed an<\/p>\n
offence punishable ijun\u20acd\u00e9..:- ~s\u00e9etiQ1j\u00a7:’Vj’323 1.13.0. The<\/p>\n
aecusedlllalsbfheld’JOutvthreatswts the lives of PWs.l and
\n2 and’cQn1.mittetiA:_i;an”‘silence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
505 ape. ‘<\/p>\n
  Durin\u00a7’ti’ie”c0urse of trial, PWs.l to 14 were<\/p>\n
  documents as per E3x.P1 to P8 were<\/p>\n
marked .. l ”  ‘T<\/p>\n
~. g_The defence of accused was one of total denial.<\/p>\n
A  l’he~\u00ab_.accused have denied that PWs.l and 2 belong to<\/p>\n
  Schedule Caste. 5″\\:= .:.’\u00e9<"'~ x if-*2 \u00bb\u00ab7ii~~.=\u00ab<\/p>\n
7. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of
\nevidence and on hearing learned counsels for both<\/p>\n
parties, convicted accused for the aforesaid offencfesl;<\/p>\n
In View of the conviction of accused, foilhowiiig<\/p>\n
points would arise for determination ‘:-  l<\/p>\n
1) Whether the prosecution?’   <\/p>\n
771997 at about 8v’i3G_a.rn;,.. ;ac\u00a2us’\u00a73d’..,1i\\1Q.m1jtgi 5,}<\/p>\n
had formed unlawful  criminal
\nforce thereby .co,rr1mi’t’tedroffence” punishable<\/p>\n
under Section  <\/p>\n
2] has proved that accused
\n1* to’.\u00a7”l’i1i.:ifurtherance of common object of
\n_unlawlfu1,asseI_nbly, knowing full well that PWs.l
\n va_indv2 belor1_gHt,o Schedule Caste, abused them by
\n name of their caste Within public vision
\n  atn:.:*intention to humiliate them and in the
\nof same transaction, accused No. 4 to 6<\/span><\/p>\n
l ..pulled the saree of PW.2 with an intention to
\ndishonour or outrage her modesty thereby,
\n accused No.1 to 6 have committed an offence
\npunishable under Section 3 (1) (X) and 3 (1) [xi] of
\nSC\/ST (Prevention of Atrocities} Act r\/W Section<\/p>\n
149 i.P.C. :2 W    M <\/p>\n
3] Whether the prosecution has proved in the course
\nof same transaction, accused No.1 to 3 assaulted
\nPW.1 and accused No.2 to 6 assaulted PWi,’2″–.with<\/p>\n
a cartpeg thereby, accused con1n1itted”:lo’f-fences<\/p>\n
punishable under Sections 823 and   <\/p>\n
section 149 IPC ?\n<\/p>\n
4) Whether the prosecution:’\u00bbhas’~proved-.tl1at”liI1A <\/p>\n
course of same transaction”.._ accused5Athreat’en’ed_”‘,<\/p>\n
PW.1 and 2 with direleonsequencesu to their lives
\nthereby accusedpcomrniittjed an offence. punishable<\/p>\n
under Section See’ yr\/wp 1:49  -2
\n5] Whether\ufb01he    has properly
\n record ‘.9<\/p>\n
6} W1iQlh,\u20acF’   judgment calls for<\/p>\n
– interfer\u00a2hcev”?\n<\/p>\n
 “order ‘.9<\/p>\n
 ‘Bvelfore adverting to the oral evidence of PW’s.1<\/p>\n
toyp  is necessary to consider the documentary<\/p>\n
  ‘evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of the<\/p>\n
 -\u00bb-elaste of PW1 and PW2. The prosecution has produced<\/p>\n
the document as per E1x.P7′, which is not a caste<\/p>\n
certificate, but it is a reply sent by the Tahsiidar’ {CW.16
\nit ~\u00a71v~5\u00e9-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3..\\; 4<\/p>\n
— B.S.’I’alwar) of Channagiri Taiuk. CW. 16 — B.S.’};’alwar
\nwas not examined before the Trial Court. The doctiment<\/p>\n
as per EXP’? does not fall under Section <\/p>\n
Therefore. the document cannot be read’
\nevidence. The examination of C.WA.1_6′ fca\u00e9ste
\nPW’s.1 and 2 and production orca\u00e9teii ce1″t_ificate <\/p>\n
manner known to law was atjsoluteiy.neceVssar\\fto prove”<\/p>\n
the caste of PW} and..PW2A.-more ‘partict11ar13r.-arhen the
\naccused have denied’  -2 belong to a<\/p>\n
schedule caste.’   adduced by<\/p>\n
prose:-;ci’1htViVo11..irlivs  safficient to prove offences
\npunishabie  3 (1) (X) and 3 [1] (Xi) of the<\/p>\n
Act._. _v  .\n<\/p>\n
 FromAthe….eVidence of PWs.1 to 6, I find that<\/p>\n
 iirjroof of offences under sections 323, 324,<\/p>\n
‘i_isr:incredib1e and inconsistent. Accused No.5<\/p>\n
 is thevimother of accused No.6 — Kurnshyiaja. At the
\n time, Kun1.Shylaja was aged about 16 years<\/p>\n
   and her mother Lakshmamrna [accused no.5} was aged<\/p>\n
 X:\n<\/p>\n
 A ;’\n<\/p>\n
3.\\i  \\~ k {Li “‘L[\u00a31’\\-..’<\/p>\n
about 50 years.\n<\/p>\n
l0. PWs.l. 2 and 4 have deposed that accused
\nNo.1 to 6 pulled the Saree of PW.2. This evidence looks<\/p>\n
improbable for two reasons. Accused No.1 to Eitogeither<\/p>\n
could have pulled the saree of <\/p>\n
improbable as accused No.5 and,”6_who_–‘are=\u00a7vorf1’er1.Vha_d””<\/p>\n
attempted or used criminal lforcfe ..
\noutrage the modesty of  V l _ V ‘ V is V l<\/p>\n
PW.5 has not  Vnniorolsecution.\n<\/p>\n
PW.7 has deposed  6 pulled the
\nsaree of   This  improbable.\n<\/p>\n
Accused._NoV;5l’\u00bb.an:di  women. Therefore, it looks
\nridiculous that’ accu\u00bbs.e”c} ‘No.5 and 6 had intention to<\/p>\n
dislionoiir ornloultrage the modesty of PW.2.<\/p>\n
   Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses”;infproof of offences under sections 323, 324,<\/p>\n
 506 1.’\/llV’\u00ab[ section l49 IPC, it is necessary to state that<\/p>\n
   and 2 and their family members had grievance<\/p>\n
against accused No.1 who was cultivating the land<\/p>\n
“downed by Lakkavva {elder sister of PW.l). She was<\/p>\n
staying in the house of accused No.1. These facts are<\/p>\n
3\\s  \u00bb.. .\u00ab:”3″‘x ‘M’s-C%;x*<\/p>\n
deposed by PW. I. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that
\naccused No.4 had lodged a complaint against  that<\/p>\n
PW.1 and his family members had been warned<\/p>\n
police not to enter the land held by Lakkawja  <\/p>\n
in the’possession of accused. ,~I:o._4the.” cii9c’ufmsta_neei’sV, it<\/p>\n
evidence of PW’s 2 and 4 that  <\/p>\n
the house of PW.1 and piciied-.up ci;.i1a__1″1*elVglVw:ith;Vhin’i”jw”ith”‘ V<\/p>\n
regard to possession.’ of Vt-he.”gaforestatleciv-..lahd looks
\nimprobable. PW’s.;i   that accused<\/p>\n
No.1 and hisgvfailnily 1if1enib’ers.x5ve’;feV in “possession of land<\/p>\n
belonging ” , _v    the Circumstances, the
\nevider1.ce’– of  that family members of
\naccused ..No.1 lcaIne”riea_1_f”the house of PW.1 and picked<\/p>\n
up gguarre4l”‘with,..PW’v1 looks improbable. On the other<\/p>\n
 ha.’rI\u00a7:i,  l.ooks’.””p1′.Qbably PW.1 and 2 who had grudge<\/p>\n
. against ‘Aacciused No.1 and his family members for being<\/p>\n
and cultivation of land belonging to<\/p>\n
 concocted a story to lodge a false case<\/p>\n
 against}..accu.sed No.1 and his family members, with a<\/p>\n
it View  dispossess them from the land owned by<\/p>\n
l”I.,akl?:a\\Wa. 3\/\\i  t 5″‘ ‘””‘\u20ac*”<\/p>\n
PW.1 has deposed that the first accused assauited
\nhim with a ciub and the accused abused his} as<\/p>\n
“Madiga Sulemagane”.\n<\/p>\n
PW.2 has deposed that accused assa_ufl’\u00a3:ed with. <\/p>\n
a cart peg.\n<\/p>\n
PW.4 has gone a step further toggdepose<\/p>\n
accused dragged PW’s.1 and”‘2:from hiSV_house’\u00a7’.:which is<\/p>\n
not the case of proseedution<\/p>\n
PW.6 has deposed_”thsat”  ‘abused PW’s.1<\/p>\n
and   ‘of their caste. They had
\nassaulted sI?VVTVs.x1 PW6 was not a witness for the<\/p>\n
occu;rrei’xce.\n<\/p>\n
 deposed that accused No.1 to 6<\/span><\/p>\n
tre’spas_seddA.71hto the house of PW’s 1 and 2 and pulled<\/p>\n
  of their house. Accused No.1 abused PW.2 as<\/p>\n
  ‘-7f_I*iada1’agithi”. Accused No.5 and 6 pulled the saree of<\/p>\n
  PW.’7 has given altogether a different version,<\/p>\n
even otherwise, he was deCIareci as a hostiie witness.<\/p>\n
;”\\f%, 1-5 Lu:?{ …\n<\/p>\n
PW. 11 is related to PW. 1. PW.l1 has deposed that
\naccused picked up quarrel with PW.1 regarding<\/p>\n
possession of land held by Lakkavva. <\/p>\n
demanding PW.l to give up the land a1′}.f;’l:—
\ntelling that he will not give up the .landj.lh allll
\nthe accused surrounded PW’s.;l; ‘:2 <\/p>\n
them. Accused No.6 pu11ed.,l:tia.\u00a2 sate? ofu~PW.11=7<\/p>\n
was also declared as ,a hostile lj\ufb01witriess. l’l1\u20ac. Evidence of
\nPW1l that accused hlad.cgoi1.ef’:’r2:lealr ‘house of PW} to<\/p>\n
demand to part’ with:jdossessjioifgpf of Lakkavva is<\/p>\n
contrarv”ltoc*  of \u00bb .l5W1. _  V
\nPW. 10 is all-\u00a7g.ed’\u00bb\u00bbh ave witnessed the occurrence.<\/p>\n
He has not “stated’– aljout the assault. He appears to be a<\/p>\n
l  -. pos\u00abtl’oe”currence Witness.<\/p>\n
 1 1′”2.,_AlFrosrn_j..the evidence of above witnesses, We \ufb01nd<\/p>\n
that  no consistency in their evidence. The<\/p>\n
 entire vinlcident is distorted. The evidence of F~’W’s.4\u00bb and
\n accused No.6 pulled the same of PW.2 with an<\/p>\n
…_inteni:ion to dishonour or ouiirage her modesty is<\/p>\n
ridiculous. Even with regard to words uttered by<\/p>\n
5″\\)  “X *~- 57* <\/p>\n
accused to insult PW’s.1 and 2 by taking the name of
\ntheir caste is ridiculous. Added to this, the Inedical<\/p>\n
evidence of PW.9 does not support the egrea\/fit.ness<\/p>\n
account of incident. PW.9 we  <\/p>\n
Medicai Officer of Channagiri_.ha.s cienovsletiy’  on<\/p>\n
7.7.1997 at about 4.15 p.m., Pxivfs  <\/p>\n
hospital. PW9 examined and ‘fot1nd”~.ll’oi’1oiwingl”V<\/p>\n
injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1) Abrasion beneatl’1’th’e   <\/p>\n
2) Complaint of pg\ufb01i’  ia:;m. :s\ufb01r\u00a3er1ln\u00a7. behind the head<\/p>\n
  . _’
\n \u00bb Q  examined PW.1 —\n<\/p>\n
Ranggiappa anti.  the following injuries:<\/p>\n
   (_vfoni:tisivon on the left fore arm<\/p>\n
3  C,on.tVus;ion on the neck
\n‘   of pain on the back<\/p>\n
4) ..Cc-intlusion on the left thigh<\/p>\n
  lll”~,However, PW.9 has not given the dimension of<\/p>\n
injuries. PW’s.1 and 2 and other eyewitnesses have<\/p>\n
 deposed that accused No.1 to 6 had assaulted PW1 and<\/p>\n
PW2 with a club and cart peg however, we do not find<\/p>\n
\u00abF 5!<\/p>\n
axi  1;” ,\u00e9’5”\\. \\.\n<\/p>\n
corresponding injuries on PW} and PW2. Added to this.<\/p>\n
there vvas inordinate delay in lodging the con’1pla,int.<\/p>\n
The occurrence took place on _<\/p>\n
8.30 am. The jurisdictional police  \u00abat<\/p>\n
distance of 10 Kms from the place of .inciedent”;-  <\/p>\n
information was lodged atab-out  <\/p>\n
for which there is noV’_satisfa_cto1fy  less
\nthe explanation. 1 d<\/p>\n
13. Thuei __On re’ V.oi\u00bb”‘evidence, I \ufb01nd
\nthat PW’s. \u00abi   accused for being
\nin  by Lakkavva (elder sister of
\nPWI]. ‘In was living in the house of<\/p>\n
th.e.{:acc~used.d “Accus,ed No.1 to 6 were in possession of<\/p>\n
‘ land  Lakkavva. There was no need for accused<\/p>\n
.    near the house of PW’s.1 and 2 to pick<\/p>\n
up with them regarding possession of land. The<\/p>\n
VA  prosecution ha.s failed to prove that PW’s 1 and 2 belong<\/p>\n
‘to schedule caste. The document as per EX.P7 cannot<\/p>\n
be read as per  evidence in absence of examination of
\nTahsildar (CW16) as a witness. The evidence of PW.4<\/p>\n
that a,\u00bb.::(;:useci Nof: .21r1.d 8 had outraged the rriodesty of<\/p>\n
PW2 looks ridiculous, as accused No.5 and 6 araalso<\/p>\n
women. The evidence of PW’s TI to 5, PWI7 <\/p>\n
not supported by medical evidence and  K , <\/p>\n
their evidence is highly discrepant;”\u00abPW’s-;5.,A.:_’7–_Vari’d’v<\/p>\n
were declared as hostile gwitnesses. T.f’_;e:”1″;1eCl.icala <\/p>\n
certi\ufb01cate and evidence    show
\ngrievous injuries,  thevmpersons of
\nPW’s.l and 2, that ,”.iIfjv’:itlf1ey had been
\nassaulted    There was
\ninordinate first information for<\/p>\n
which there   pifoper’ explanation.<\/p>\n
It appears’  1 and 2 had grudge against<\/p>\n
 accused No.1 a1’1d___Ij1_i5 family members for being in<\/p>\n
 belonged to Lakkavva who is the<\/p>\n
elder.’\u00absisvter7.’of It appears that PW.l had lodged<\/p>\n
“first information against accused No.1 and his family<\/p>\n
 “meiriibers vvith a view to dispossess them from the land<\/p>\n
 _ -fiieiii by Leikkawa.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Judge without noticing these<\/p>\n
discrepancies has held accused guilty of aforesiated \u00a33<\/p>\n
\/3,’  5:-j”‘*’ V”\n<\/p>\n
3. ,_ ._<\/p>\n
offences. On re appreciation of evidence, I find that<\/p>\n
none of the offences for which the accused wereuciharged<\/p>\n
is proved. Therefore, the impugned  _<\/p>\n
Sustained.\n<\/p>\n
14. In the result, I pass the   4′ ‘
\n  b
\nThe appeal is accepted,4_i:’f’he  jtidgment is
\nset aside. Accused   2001, on<\/p>\n
the \ufb01le of Special  irate acquitted of<\/p>\n
offene’es’i’pL”1,f1iSh:2\u00a7i??J1euiidersections 147. 323, 324. 506
\nr\/W   “offences punishable under<\/p>\n
Sectionsb3~\u00bb(1’) [xV]’V-.afn.d3″iiV[1) (xi) of the SC\/ST (Prevention<\/p>\n
 oi-“,,.f\u00a7trocities)  bail bonds executed by accused<\/p>\n
  “shall  ciapcelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited<\/p>\n
by\u00e9\u00e9jibthe. shall be refunded to them. Office is<\/p>\n
 Adirecte_d to send back records along with a copy of this<\/p>\n
  ju_dgme11t.\n<\/p>\n
gel; *’
\nEEEGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P … on 27 October, 2010 Author: N.Ananda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27′?” DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE 1. THE) HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.ANA1$:II)A.\u00a2’ ” CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1369\/20’e{; A _E_3__E_’\u00a7__W_E_E_1\\\u00a3 Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi A 8\/0 Hosurappa Aged […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-163840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P ... on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P ... on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-21T07:55:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P … on 27 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-21T07:55:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2678,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P ... on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-21T07:55:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P … on 27 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P ... on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P ... on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-21T07:55:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P … on 27 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-21T07:55:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010"},"wordCount":2678,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010","name":"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P ... on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-21T07:55:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maheshwarappa-maheshi-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-channagiri-p-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi vs State Of Karnataka By Channagiri P … on 27 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=163840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}